Talk:Indoctrination
I've put this under Category : Adversary because indoctrination is virtually an enemy of its own accord. --Tullis 10:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Makes sense. Should Thorian enslavement be counted under indoctrination? It's similar, but not quite the same.72.241.22.153 00:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC) The Indoctrination is simlar between the Thorian and the Reapers (Old machines), but the Thorians might of used other alien races to created the reapers as new body so that they move more freely from to space. Also the Indoctrination would change as well cause they can no longer create they're spores so that energy field the reapers maded around them is producing the effect of the spores the Thorians' maked. ShadowZero2010 17:17, May 6, 2010 (UTC) Rana Thanoptis Shiala being the only Indoctrination survivor is factually incorrect. Rana can be found working under Dr. Okeer in Mass Effect 2 if she was allowed to live on Virmire. Considering both Rana and Shiala don't seem to be suffering (or at least complaining about) any Indoctrination related side-effects, it seems more likely that escaping the area of influence of the reapers would at least halt the indoctrination process. Am I missing any information that refutes this? 07:45, February 8, 2010 (UTC) : She never seemed to exhibit any outward signs of indoctrination, even back on Virmire. It's possible she was never exposed to begin with. Or she might still be indoctrinated but only on a small scale. 19:44, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Actually now it's official in ME 3 (I might be able to check the email in game I think my Paragon still has it on her Shadow Broker terminal) that she WAS indoctrinated. She basically betrays an Asari colony to the Reapers. Later I'll check the email to type it up for sourcing purposes unless someone more used to such things can do so. As for Shiala, she also sent my Paragon an email. She explained that she IS still indoctrinated. She hears the Reapers voices all the time, but the remnants of the Thorian's control allows her to ignore the "voices in her head." AbsolutGrndZer0 06:21, March 9, 2012 (UTC) Numbers, numbers I think Saren was the one who said that the Protheans numbered in the trillions: "Trillions dead -- but what if they had bowed to the Reapers? Would the Protheans still exist?" Vigil may have confirmed that, though. --Tullis 14:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC) :Does that necessarily reflect the Protheans? Who knows how many other species were sentient and part of the Prothean fold. If we think of Prothean as a name for all those who came before then okay. Otherwise why would there be only one species then and at least 10 this time around?--Xaero Dumort 21:07, December 9, 2009 (UTC) ::They were known as the only spacefaring species of their age, therefore the most likely to be specifically targeted. But yeah, we don't know whether the Protheans were one species (which I personally think they were meant to be) or an umbrella term like "Citadel races", which is perfectly possible. It's been 50,000 years and they were near-wholly wiped out; who knows? --Tullis 21:15, December 9, 2009 (UTC) Well, look at "today". Who is being targeted? Humans. Because of Shepard mostly, humanity has been determined to be the most advanced genetically race therefore the ones they care about. There might have been other species, but they were weak and inconsequential, so they just got wiped out entirely if they were even evolved enough for the Reapers to care. In a "failed to stop the Reapers" scenario, who's to say that 50,000 years later people will find ruins of the "Humans" and all evidence will point to humans, with all the other races gone and forgotten? The galaxy would think these "humans" created the Mass Relays and Citadel, with no evidence to tell them otherwise. AbsolutGrndZer0 14:46, September 9, 2011 (UTC) Please dont't necro topics, you revitalized a nearly two year old topic.--Paladin cross 14:58, September 9, 2011 (UTC) :Which he is free to do so at any time. As long as a talk page isn't archived, then the topic can be revisited. Perhaps there is new information about it, or any number of other reasons. Lancer1289 16:42, September 9, 2011 (UTC) Please stop adding the rachni I have corrected this three times over the past few days. While I agree that it seems likely, from what she said, that the rachni queens were affected by indoctrination, it's not clear enough from what she said that it was indoctrination, to add it definitively. The rachni aren't exactly explicit, at least from what we've heard. Please stop adding the rachni until we get better confirmation. --Tullis 20:14, December 9, 2009 (UTC) I just replayed the game and I don't see how it's not obvious that the Rachni were indoctrinated. Could an Asari have soured their song? Maybe a Turian? I guess I'm being kinda rude here but honestly, what else could it be? Do we really need a developer to give us a full list of what is and isn't indoctrinated? At that point, why not just ask for a full outline of the Mass Effect 3 plotline? I'm not going to add it, just really don't see where it's not plainly obvious, much more than "seems likely" AbsolutGrndZer0 01:19, August 30, 2011 (UTC) :However obvious it is to you that the rachni were indoctrinated, it's only your opinion, a conclusion based on tenuous evidence. Until we get something more substantial, we cannot say with absolute certainty that the rachni were indoctrinated. If that means we must wait for ME3 to give us the necessary confirmation, or even beyond ME3, then we will wait. -- Commdor (Talk) 03:01, August 30, 2011 (UTC) ::Should I also point out that even the Rachni Queen wasn't sure it was the Reapers? She thinks it may be the same things that Shepard is fighting, but even she, who is probably in the best position to know, has to guess. And because she has to, we won't. Lancer1289 03:09, August 30, 2011 (UTC) Nanotechnology? Is it just me, or does anyone remember something about nanotechnology from ME2 in regards to indoctrination? I could have sworn I remember hearing something to that effect, but I'll play through again and get some confirmation before editing. Lyriq 03:06, February 7, 2010 (UTC) Here is the quote, if anyone's interested: "We've finished cataloging specimens A203 to B016, no evidence of active nanotechnogy noted. Dr. Chandana believes that they would have decayed over the last 37 million years. There is not enough data to support his claim. He asserts that the truth is "patently obvious." I am...concerned. Chandana has been staring at the samples for hours. He says he's listening to them." Worthy of mention in the article? 02:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :What, that scientific inquiry into whether or not nanotechnology is involved in indoctrination was inconclusive? (Lots of in-words there!) I can't see any circumstances under which this would be worthy of mention. It's essentially saying 'Well, it could be nanotechnology, but then again, there's no evidence of it. But it still could be.' Definitive fact one way or the other would be worthy of mention. Saying 'it might be, but then again, it might not be'? Not so much. SpartHawg948 02:25, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::Well considering nanotech is mentioned thanks to the events that occured in Mass Effect: Retribution. As to this specific thing, I say no as well, because it doesn't confirm or deny anything. If anything, it will just add more confusion to the article. Retribution cleared it up and it is mentioned. However, this quote doesn't do anything except dance around the bush. Lancer1289 02:30, August 20, 2010 (UTC) :::Nanotechnology is mentioned in Retribution, this is true, but never in conjunction with indoctrination. And remember, the Reapers controlling Grayson (which they do using the nanotech, not through indoctrination) employ indoctrination on Kahlee Sanders, quite successfully, until being disrupted by Anderson's shotgun. And, unless I missed something, I never once read anything about them injecting her with or exposing her to nanotech before doing so. SpartHawg948 02:49, August 20, 2010 (UTC) ::::Hmm, that is a good point and I guess that sometimes you do need someone to take a second look and offer a second opinion in order to see things clearly. With that logic, I guess nanotech wasn't involved, and it was just the tech controlling him. Which can used in scifi very often, organics controlled through technology. This seems to be just another example of this. Lancer1289 02:58, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Yeah, what it appears to be, to me anyways, is that the nanotech is a means for the Reapers to literally physically control someone. We've seen examples of this both in Saren (when Sovereign 'resurrected' his corpse to fight Shepard) and in Paul Grayson. Then you have indoctrination, which seems to be more of a sonic phenomenon, based on what we've seen in-game, with Benezia, the captured salarians, the rachni (assuming the 'sour yellow tone from space' was Reaper indoctrination), Kahlee Sanders, etc. This would seem to allow the Reapers to influence the actions of the indoctrinated, but not to directly control them, simply to 'nudge' them down a desired course of action. SpartHawg948 03:04, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Grayson Does Grayson count as indoctrinated (in the time retribution takes place, also spoilers may follow), or is his case unique (given the circumstances).--McDarkness 23:49, July 30, 2010 (UTC) :Garyson is probably a unique case and as such shouldn't be noted. Lancer1289 23:54, July 30, 2010 (UTC) ::My take on it would be that this is not your typical indoctrination, seeing as that usually just involves mental manipulation, rather than full-blown cybernetic enhancement. Maybe unique is pushing it as Saren was quite extensively 'upgraded' by Sovereign. Though he was already at least partially indoctrinated by that point. FridgeRaider88 23:58, July 30, 2010 (UTC) Well, since its unique, should we move that nanotech section I put in? Because not sure if we would need to separate the two types.--McDarkness 02:43, July 31, 2010 (UTC) Supposed to be a deeper hint? I think the whole inability of the Cerberus team on the Derelict Reaper to identify active nanotechnology was an allusion to a form of matter manipulation more fitting with the theme of the Reapers being "beyond our understanding." We would be unable to recognize picotechnology with our technological capabilities much as someone a couple hundred years ago would have been unable to recognize nanotech. That person would probably accredit any activity on the nano scale to be some God-like force beyond understanding. Femtotechnology might actually be more fitting with the force of indoctrination, though, as it would seem to alter the behavior of particles involved in delicate neuro-chemical processes, and we would definitely be unable to recognize tech that advanced, even at the time of ME. --LBCCCP 05:07, November 21, 2010 (UTC) :I dunno. It seems to me that they couldn't identify active nanotechnology because there was no nanotechnology (or picotechnology or femtotechnology, for that matter). Indoctrination seems, when you consider all the sources, and all the instances in which we know it's been used, to employ some other means, and it seems to be sound-based, if what we saw in the first game and in Retribution is any indicator. After all, we've seen examples of Reaper nanotechnology, and seen what it does, and it's clear that, at least in the case of Paul Grayson and Retribution, Reaper nanotechnology and Reaper indoctrination are two separate things. SpartHawg948 05:45, November 21, 2010 (UTC) Illusive Man Indoctrination? So, it's recently been discussed on the forums that the story of the Illusive Man suggested that he was exposed to Reaper tech, and in fact some of his cybernetics are Reaper. So, should he be listed on this page, at the very least as potential until ME3 confirms it either way? AbsolutGrndZer0 01:20, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :No as it is speculation, and we do not allow speculation in articles. Until we have confirmation, we can't mention this. Lancer1289 01:22, June 20, 2011 (UTC) ::Agreed. All we know for certain is that the Illusive Man's been exposed to Reaper tech, but Evolution and ME2 show no evidence of him being indoctrinated. If ME3 reveals that he was indoctrinated, we'll add him to this article then. -- Commdor (Talk) 01:25, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Um... what about "Possible Victims" section? That's all speculation, isn't it? AbsolutGrndZer0 02:43, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :We don't allow speculation in articles so that's a no on adding that, which in of itself is speculation. Lancer1289 02:51, June 20, 2011 (UTC) :(Edit Conflict) You're right, that would be speculation. I've removed the section. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:52, June 20, 2011 (UTC) Desolas Arterius Why is he on the list? And under the ME2 section too. Even if you meant to add his brother Saren, he should be under ME1. As I understand it, Desolas died during the First Contact War, way before Saren even met Sovereign. Stormkeeper 16:51, March 7, 2012 (UTC) : Nevermind. Figured it out. Stormkeeper Is the Monolith ever confirmed to be a Reaper artifact? Biotics can Indoctrinate? In Mass Effect 2, Morinth has the Dominate ability, and in Mass Effect 3 The Illusive Man might have caused Shepard to Fire his Gun after doing some sort of Biotic thingy while on the Citadel at the End. Just on Observation. --Stabber ApSig 23:17, April 21, 2012 (UTC) Sovereign and the Saren Husk Is there any definite confirmation that the destruction of the Saren Husk caused Sovereign to drop its shields? I think the article is committing a correlation-implies-causation fallacy. When I first played through that part, I thought the fleet just depleted Sovereign's shields conventionally, by sheer persistence. - Sikon (talk) 20:30, November 9, 2013 (UTC) : Never mind. It's in the Codex entry for Sovereign. Should probably add it as a citation. - Sikon (talk) 11:41, December 18, 2013 (UTC) :That would mean that we'd have to cite nearly everything on this page. Citations are done for sources that are outside of the game, which usually entails trivia. ouisehjk 13:18, December 18, 2013 (UTC)